Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Every news outlet in the country is talking about the swine flu, and its threat of a pandemic. While the authorities scramble to identify and contain the threat, the public is wondering what responses they should consider. First off, don’t panic! Panic causes people to say and do really stupid and dangerous things.

Second, consider the contact you and your associates have with individuals who may be at risk, due to their own associate circle and recent travel. If you show flu symptoms, take immediate precautions and see your medical provider right away, with a recent trip/contact diary in-hand.

Third, consider supporting your first and best line medical defense, by feeding your immune system what it needs to work properly, Vitamin D3. A daily dose of 5-10,000 IUs of D3 will boost your body’s production of antimicrobial peptides shown to kill the influenza virus. D3 also helps the immune system avoid cytokine ‘overload’, whereby our immune systems overreacts to a pathogen or antagonist, congesting the lungs. Don’t worry about drug interactions or overdose with D3, as we normally produce up to 30,000 IUs of D3 during a sunbathing hour at the beach.

Lastly, be particularly watchful of children and older adults, or anyone else with weak or weakened immune system. Again, contact a qualified medical professional if you suspect you have the flu. Do not wait!

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The wife of a friend recently died from breast cancer. That she has been in the US for over 20 years as a first generation immigrant from Liberia made me pause a little longer over this heartbreaking event. The breast cancer rate for Liberia is less than half of the US. It is sadly ironic that by coming to the US for a better life, this Liberian woman dramatically increased her chances of dying from breast cancer.

As the chart shows, the Liberian rate is approximately 40 incidences per thousand, while in the US it is 92 per thousand, more than double. So why the dramatic difference? When cancer rates are higher there are only two places to look, external and internal. There are many external causes for breast cancer but only one internal protection, our immune system. Working properly, it turns cancerous cells off, killing them and saving our lives. It has been doing this job in humanoids for millions of years.

Assuming no extraordinary exposure to carcinogenic substances, why would the internal protection system in a woman from Liberia breakdown, exposing her to high risk? The problem is sunlight, which is different in the US than in Liberia. The latitude of the US is higher, yielding significantly less sun intensity. Liberian skin is less suited for our reduced sun and the result is a compromised immune system and higher cancer rates, due to vitamin D3 deficiency. The solution is in a little pill, sold over-the-counter at pharmacies, which cost about $0.04. It is vitamin D3.

There are numerous studies (here) and (here) on the efficacy of D3 for all women, but the medical community is moving very slow, mostly because big pharmaceutical companies do not pay doctors to push non-prescription medicines that, by definition, are not proprietary and wildly profitable. The cancer industry, people who research cures, do not care about D3 because little research is needed, therefore billions do not need to be begged, and this would mean these people would have to find other things to do with their time.

So we wait, and women like the spouse of my friend suffer and die – needlessly. It's not just breast cancer, but all forms of internal cancers that exploit our D3-compromised immune systems, prostate, colon, et al. The search for a human-made cure for cancer could be called the great medical pipe-dream, as broken cell replication is an inevitable and infintiely randomized by-product of living. Our healthy immune system evolved over millions of years to halt cancer, only begging our rightful care and feeding to do its proper job.

Monday, April 27, 2009

All this talk of the New Haven firefighters, test scores, racism and the Supreme Court has my disparity and proportionality antennae on high alert. In this mode, I spent Sunday afternoon at a CYO track meet with my 13 year old son and a good mix of black, white, Latino, and a sprinkling of Asian, K-8 kids.

From a participation standpoint, the white and Latino kids predominate, as the overlap of black and Catholic, even in predominantly black neighborhoods trails. Nonetheless, the black kids pretty much dominate all but the distance running events. Yet, no one seems to mind. There are no white, Asian or Latino cries from the stands of unfairness or bias. No one wants to gift the white kids a five second reduction in their times, just for being white. Everybody accepts that the black kids are disproportionately better in track and field, with no better coaching, facilities, or commitment.

In watching many of the non-black kids, I saw opportunities where better coaching etc. would certainly improve their competitiveness, but the cost to benefit ratio does not warrant this effort, as few, of any hue, will go on to the Olympics. This is exactly the opposite behavior of my own working-class parents placing my sister and me in a summer reading program at the University of Denver nearly 45 years ago, as a seven year old. Something made them think it was worth a bus ride across town to become better readers. Cost to benefit, again.

If it is insane to repeat the same activity again and again while hoping for a different result, then education in the US is hopelessly insane. Teaching a one-size curriculum to kids with measured intelligence gaps of more than one standard deviation and hoping that they will grow up as equivalent contributors, is irresponsible. Arguing over intelligence testing, when empirical results back up the current testing, is splitting futile hairs. The back-end dole of affirmative action hides the obvious incompetence of the front-end approach, in the name of ‘all men are created equal’. Men (and women) are equal in spirit, but kids of different cultures are unequal in starting abilities and it’s high time we stopped ignoring this fact.

We need to say that which shall not be spoken. By the third grade, the natural course of black school children permanently reflects intellectual inferiority to whites, Asians, and Latinos (language adjusted) in learning skills development and ability. The ills of black culture, beginning from before birth, are largely responsible for this inferior preparation. Argue the source if you will, but this practical inferiority, once established, is intractable and sets a course through life, with dependence upon arbitrary handouts from inept, but politically correct, race arbitrators, like those in New Haven.

What are we afraid of? Black kids, who place consistently behind their white and Asian classmates in learning, are no worse off for this bit of honest recognition than are those white kids, at today’s track meet, who went home feeling bad that the black kids are so dang fast and best them from the beginning to the end of the season. Each has the choice of how they are going to respond. In the case of the white kids, they can either practice or better yet rub their aching muscles with their latest “I’m so proud of you” report card. Tragically, the black kids have fewer report cards to beam about, along with a legacy of mislaying blame and guilt on others, to no prescriptive benefit.

We worry so much about labels that the truth gets buried. Special education classrooms, even entire special education schools, across the country are packed with black kids, while white kids and Asians pack AP. Large swaths of black kids are quietly shifted to this unofficial under performance track. If you read what expert educators prescribe for fixing this you will notice no mention of cultural drivers or race. To say that black culture is poisoning black kids is to commit professional suicide, so any real fix is elusive.

Back to New Haven, anyone who is expecting the high court to save our kids and our future, better think again. By the constitution, the court's job is to limit how much damage bad solutions are allowed to inflict, and only if those solutions violate the founding doctrine. They are not about telling people to ignore the labels and see the obvious. When we can look at black first graders and accurately predict that 55% will not meet the minimum requirements for a high school diploma, labels are not the problem. The blind eye on black inferiority and what is driving it has become the primary driver to fulfilling the prophecy.

For the record, I do not believe that intelligence in blacks is genetically inferior to any other group. The brain physiology of an average healthy black kid next to a white kid is no different, says modern science. Rather it is segmentation of normal distributions of intelligence driven by time, ethnicity, culture, and geography, where difference is made. We must stop rewarding educators who blow smoke up our butts, and promote those who speak sensible, accountable, albeit unpleasant, truths and solutions.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

The White firefighters who scored high in New Haven are right. They got screwed. The blacks who underperformed the test for promotion did not earn promotion. The high court is stupid if they cannot find their you-know-whats on this issue. The city of New Haven is allowing their desire for race proportionality to pollute the merit process, resulting in nothing good. Let’s examine this, minus all the rhetoric.

Firefighting is a dangerous job, and firehouses across America have never been the most welcoming or friendly work environments for blacks, therefore the high-order of qualified black firefighters and candidates go elsewhere for better pay and/or safer/better work conditions, leaving the gap we currently see in test performance in places like New Haven. I wonder if the Beverly Hills, CA FD has a similar problem, assuming desirability?

Looking inside, there are two contorted demand scenarios that arise, one for the qualified blacks and another for the under qualified. We have covered the over qualified. Alternately, the under qualified must either become the beneficiaries of arbitrary ‘bonus points’, so that they may now appear competitive (promotable), or authorities must disqualify the test until they get the results they want – the behavior the court is considering.

Long after white firefighters stopped routinely cheating to keep their ranks white, affirmative action is still being used to fix a problem of proportionality that has nothing to do with equal opportunity. As long as blacks drop out of school in disproportion, or gain diplomas on lesser skill sets, these last-ditch AA fixes are going to challenge merit based promotion and reward systems, and keep us at odds. It is ludicrous to expect race proportional results from disproportionate inputs. Recognizing this is the biggest challenge of race/ethnicity in America. I take that back, accepting it and moving forward is the biggest challenge.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

I will be the first to admit that when it comes to comprehending the discussions of race realist (here), my brush is broad. Nevertheless, I paint away, believing in the direction of my strokes.

Mr. Mangan has done me a service (here) on my demographic usage/application of 'race realist' and 'white nationalist', at least with respect to himself. I do not like lumping people together, but when they come in a lump I try my best to deal with it.

I never pegged Mangan as a separatist Idaho-type fellow or as a racist, he does not seem interested in debating the stopping power of a .44 vs. a .357. But his site collects these types (as well) under the broad heading of 'angry white guys pushing back'. I know this because they visit my blog in turn. In this sense, Mangan has been a reluctant leader, or at the least, aggregator of this broad category.

His post on the 'Movement', which began all of this, was a step out of the shadows of accidental leadership, and a move I encourage. However, for my money I needed him to clarify who he is and is not, and therefore what it is I think he is leading. His response does this.

I have no problem with a white majority led country. As long as merit determines who's in charge, I'm all for it. I also have no problems recognizing the contributions of whites, or white men specifically. Individually, I have benefited greatly by the attention of white mentors, especially in school. But, I will not ignore atrocities by any hand, black or white.

Bottom line, I listen to Mangan and his faithful because I see merit in many of their arguments. But if he is to lead this group, the difficult task of clarifying the message, and the unpopular task of culling the true racist/white nationalist unfaithful must also occur. Defining these people from within is a proper start.

Monday, April 20, 2009

On the heels of reading and writing about white nationalists on this and other blogs over the last week, I have some observations that may or may not have meaning to those who wonder “what the hell is that guy Collier's problem?” Granted, the idea of a bunch of white men who want a white-only place to call home (that is not Idaho) disturbs and entices a lot of people.

So why am I not more fearful, but still mindful, of these people? This is where the pictured Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), the Italian economist comes in. Recall that he proposed the relationship where nearly 80% of stuff that occurs results from a source that is 20% of itself. So in Pareto thinking, 80% of the racism comes for 20% of the population, just as 80% of crime comes from another distinct 20%.

In the case of crime, blacks commit a disproportion and some folks errantly attribute this to a racial flaw. What is obscured is that 80% of crime is also committed by poor people (regardless of race), who also happen to be disproportionately black, with influence by some combination of their own doing and society's efforts. What is also obscured is that blacks were ‘bused in’ from regions of the world where the rule-of-law has lagged in development for thousands of years for reasons only speculated, perhaps establishing a lower threshold. Now if you want to have a discussion about racial/ethnic distinctions, this is the place to start, but this post is not the time.

In the case of ‘racial realism’, the white guy lingo for no Blacks, no Mexicans, no Jews, no Asian men allowed, the crux is not with the 20% who want others out, but rather the 80% of white people who don’t care or care in the opposite. Pareto gives us confidence in the 20% of whites ready, willing, and able to counter the white nationalist fever. Sure, the mad-as-hell-crew can show us scary progress, but the practical and committed race realists simply move to Idaho and try to make a living, while they practice for race Armageddon – problem solved.

Moving on, just because the realists are fighting a battle they cannot or should not win, does not mean that we should ignore their protest, especially the content of their angst. For example, immigration policies and enforcement that result in more low-skilled, uneducated citizens and quasi-citizens is very bad for this country's future. The cheap labor war was loss decades ago. Our best option is to pour resources into advancing technologies, rather than borrowing to buy imported consumables. The place to start and finish this effort is early age reading, math, and science in schools. It also means tracking kids who cannot make the grade into vocational trade programs in high school, where they can also live and contribute to a productive, lawful society, instead of filling prisons or as minimum-wage fodder for service industries that feed obesity and general unhealthiness.

To summarily toss out the baby with the racial realist-bathwater is to miss the important learnings their visibility allows. When I see a group angst-ing out, the first thing I try to do, after checking for weapons, is separate the behavior from its source, as they are not all crackpots - just (you guessed it) 20%.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

This post is about angry, frustrated, scared white men conspiring to take back, or otherwise ‘save’, this country from its downward spiral. What this post is NOT about is a simple knee-jerk reaction to people too easily branded as racist, anti-Semitic, Europhiles. Specifically, the conversation upon which I peek is about whether this conspiracy, to take back, is advanced or encumbered by the anonymity of leading bloggers on the subject.

I will start by saying that Dennis Mangan, the subject blog-owner of Mangan’s Miscellany, is a friend of mine. We have met in person, comment on each other’s blogs, and exchange email on many topics. This is not to say I agree with all that he professes or him with me, we clearly do not. However, I respect and sometimes agree with him, and certainly agree with his right to say his thoughts aloud in his real name, without fear of retaliation, physical or professional. He says that he is not fully able to speak freely, and I agree with him.

I believe he is not free to speak because, with varying degree, none of us have this complete freedom. When someone says something others do not like, they attack on two fronts. You hope they attack just the words, but they often attack you personally as well, from calling you names to trying to get you fired from your job, or banished from your industry. Blacks are accustomed to this continuum of response from hostile whites, but whites, particularly males, are newer to the bite of losing a job or promotion when the words that flow from their mouths upsets sensitivities, whatever the race.

As for the content-driver of this white male conspiracy, 'diversity gone wild', I often see their point, while I certainly do not resemble it. Mono cultures benefit from simplicity. They marshal well, free of distractions of difference, like band members of the same age, same orientation, same hometown, same socio-econ background – the Beatles/Rolling Stones come to mind. Alternately, diverse cultures benefit from transference and broader starting approach/solution sets – Earth, Wind, & Fire, to continue the popular band analogy.

I'm not sure Dennis is better off anonymous or named, but I do not believe privacy/anonymity is so easily maintained, once determined people set about figuring out a person's identity. This is especially true when and if the rhetoric reaches such a pitch that authorities become concerned with public safety.

So what am I advocating? The challenge is to read broadly, not just stuff you like. Mangan’s blog site, discussions like 'Building a Movement', and the web in general, have the unfortunate character of capturing people who are simply looking for an excuse to selfishly venture beyond moral and legal boundaries, right next to others looking for righteous answers to difficult issues. The latter, as contributing dissidents, need to speak in a heard voice, while the former deserve a monitor for their treason-leaning mischief.

Lastly, I do not care if mutineers have difficulty holding onto their day jobs, but free speech needs to remain truly free for everyone, especially people with whom I disagree.

Monday, April 13, 2009

The answer is that he is not, despite the mixed signals that abound, including repeated gaffes from his own mouth. If the Somali pirates, like the one pictured, think that being a country of a religion or culture that Washington bows to, in ceremony, puts them in good stead, they better think again. President Obama may bow to you one moment and turn the snipers on your criminal asses the next. He just proved that this is America damn it, and our culture is that we don’t stand on ceremony!

When Obama bowed to King Saud, I suggested an apology, but never mind, this is way better. While I certainly do not wish death on anyone, theft on the high-seas is one of those ageless crimes like rape and horse-stealing that demand swift rebut. Hello Mr. Pirate, meet Mr. Navy Seal. Yes, that’s a gun you are holding to the head of our man, but I have a green light and can shoot the pimple off a gnat’s ass at 200 meters? Are you listening?

Perhaps wayward Muslims around the world are now considering that Obama is a wolf dressed up like a sheep, rather than an American dressed up like a tourist. This is the beginning of some ugliness, as the Somali’s are vowing to retaliate. The US should expect this, after all, this kidnapping is not personal, it’s tribal business from a country that is about as broken as they get. The Somali rule-of-law-horse is running dead last and this has put them on a collision course with the rest of the world.

The Pirates stepped up their gamesmanship to a US-captained cargo vessel, believing that we would not call their hand. Well, we did, as we should have. Good call Mr. President, good shooting boys, now get ready to fight, and for-god-sakes do not drag this thing out (i.e. keep those KBR types out of the mix).

Thursday, April 09, 2009

The President of Liberia, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, spoke at UC Berkeley last night on the liberation and struggles of her country. As the first female head-of-state in Africa, Sirleaf presents a yeoman’s effort in recovering the country from the sins of its former leaders. Her election 2.5 years ago was no easy feat as well, as prior to this she was nearly executed in a coup, imprisoned, exiled, and charged with treason.

The US has taken a significant interest in Liberia, along with the Chinese, due to the country’s strategic location and raw materials, but so far the president has shown a strong desire to be a friend of the US. The history of the country, lead by its founding in 1847 by freed American slaves, has US ‘fingerprints’ all over it, including its constitution and capital city Monrovia, named after James Monroe, fifth US president.

Sirleaf has taken a two-pronged approach to healing the country after over a decade of civil war beginning in 1980. Of particular note, she has pushed hard to reconcile the atrocities committed by child soldiers against Liberia’s people through counseling and schooling. Education is now compulsory and fully paid for by the government. Former warlord Charles Taylor is being tried for crimes committed during the civil war.

One thing that struck me was how ethnically different Johnson-Sirleaf appears compared to the contingent of Liberians attending last night’s event. I have since learned that the ex-slave ancestors of the light-skinned Sirleaf, upon their return to Africa, actually enslaved the indigenous people for a time, and an informal caste system based on skin color exist to this day. In fact, it was the historical disparities of race that fueled the civil war.

In any event, this impressive woman seems to be good for the country, and Africa could certainly use more leaders like her. She hammered away at the need to educate her people as the only way to liberate them from their struggles. She has my vote.

James C. Collier

Update: As noted in one of the comments, the ex-slave founders were supported significantly by the US government (see American Colonization Society, ACS).

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

For all the press that Michelle Obama and the Queen of England received at the touching of each other’s backs, President Obama’s bow to Kind Saud, at their introduction at the G-20 meeting, certainly deserves scrutiny.

For the record, no American President should ever present our country, by his or her actions, as subservient to anyone, period. We can be wrong, yes, but subservient, hell no. Upon inspection, Obama forgoes the head nod or kiss on the cheek, each an acceptable show of respect, but rather he bows deeply at the waist, signaling, in the king’s culture, a lower stature. This is completely unacceptable, for the man, or for the country he leads.

It may be the case that Obama the POTUS was overtaken by Obama the man, familiar with Muslim culture and temporarily blinded by royalty. However, this did not happen when he met the Queen of England, so there is no excuse for it happening with King Saud. Had he behaved in such a manner with the Queen, he would have undoubtedly needed to sneak back into the US in disguise. I am not sure why he seems to get a pass with the King.

So what to do? Obama needs to acknowledge his mistake and apologize to the American people. And with this, we should all move on to the more important issues at hand, that of digging this country out of its myriad of messes. However, the people that don’t like this showing have every right to complain until he makes amends. And complaining about this incident is not a show of racism.

Monday, April 06, 2009

Talk show host Tavis Smiley criticized Obama during the Democratic primary and was swiftly castigated by the black community. The task of scrutinizing the new president is left to those, white or black, with sworn allegiance to Republican or conservative ideologies, as they have already been taken over by the ‘dark’ side.

Now I have my own spin. In black culture, criticism, on average, is presented and received personally, regardless of its objective base. With whites, alternatively, professional or political combatants of one moment are often seen ‘breaking bread’ soon after, which blacks view as hypocritical and whites see as on par. Illinois Professor Kochman, in his book, “Black and White Conflict in Styles”, argues that whites debate the idea, while blacks debate the person debating the idea, a significant distinction.

If Professor Kochman is correct, this would explain why black criticisms of Obama are rebutted with personal attack labels of Uncle Tom, sellout, and the like, all of which Mr. Smiley experienced. However, this response also insulates the President from a level of scrutiny of his believers, which he needs to be effective. Obama is up to his neck with the country's problems, and this suggests two things.

First, blacks who expect Obama to significantly change the group’s plight should understand that said plight, such as it is, will change only inasmuch as that of all Americans changes. Second, motivating the President cannot be accomplished by attacking him personally, nor should we assume that any criticism of him by blacks, or whites, constitutes a personal attack and/or requiring an in-kind response.

If we can put these ‘kid gloves’ and knee-jerk reactions aside, perhaps we can arrive at a point where people who support Obama can influence/disagree with him as well, tossing away the rubber-stamp and rose-colored glasses. And this would be a good thing.

Friday, April 03, 2009

Black people never know if their invisibility has to do with an unwillingness of whites to see them or white people’s inability to see anyone, down their perceived totem pole. The only way for me to know this would be to secretly watch to see if they ignore their fellow whites similar to the way they ignore blacks. For the record, I believe when you are the top dog you are going to naturally have problems ‘seeing’ others, as they simply are not important to you and there is no penalty for your ignorance. This is the same mindset I summon on rare occasion when I have to run a gauntlet in Berkeley, the panhandling capital of California.

So this is where some people, President Obama as lead exception, score high. They see people that their station says should be invisible. Obama sees people very well, but especially black people, both before and after he won office. He reaches out in a myriad of ways, a nod, a handshake, a pat, a point, a wave, or a rare bump, and these people will forever remember that tingle of specialness because he gifted them with an instant of his mind share. “The leader of the free world thought about me for a split second. Yep, I’m special.”

Now I have certainly noticed that in countries where blacks are the majority these greetings diminish. This behavior would only insure that no one ever reach their destination on time. And perhaps this behavior with whites, where they are the majority, is more for expediency rather than subjugation – I’m sure this would be George Bush’s excuse. But as people wonder about all this black-on-black signaling, they should understand that it is a direct descendant of the memory of institutional hostility. In a sea of frowns, we seek out a smile.

Finally, contrast this with the hub-bub made when Michelle Obama touched the back of Queen Elizabeth AFTER the Queen extended her arm to Ms. Obama's back, at their meeting of the G-20 this week. You would have thought she popped the old lady's bra strap or something.

"No-one - including the ladies-in-waiting standing nearby - could believe their eyes. In 57 years, the Queen has never been seen to make that kind of gesture and it is certainly against all protocol to touch her.

'But she didn't seem to mind a bit and was smiling and joking throughout,' the eyewitness said", noted the Daily Mail media outlet.

Perhaps the Windsors will try a fist-bump in the privacy of their Buckingham Palace apartment, later.

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

I just received an invitation from CNN’s Andrea Malter to mention, on this blog, the re-airing later this week of Soledad O’Brien’s piece, Black in America: The King Assassination, recapping the killing of Martin Luther King. While I think it proper to develop presentations of important historical events, I am against the grim annual marking of his death with a repeat. This is no different than marking the Kennedy assassinations every year in gruesome detail, or watching a repeat of Hiroshima/Nagasaki on the days those poor people suffered US atomic blasts.

In fact, I recommend that people not watch the CNN show on this date. Events invoking national catharsis are one shot deals that should, thereafter, be opened/re-opened in a constructive context for moving forward, be it at school, at home, or wherever. Memorial Day is our country’s day of public grieving for those we have loss. Marking King’s death in ceremony, of any kind, year after year, attach's him to the worst of this country, rather than the good he contributed. For me, commemorating his tragic death event and loss also distracts from the celebration, via holiday, of his birth and positive influence.

CNN has it all wrong. Commemorating dark days in this manner is about blame and guilt, and is not advancing for the country. These remembrances do not help blacks or whites to move forward with a positive attitude. It is simply a predictable reminder of the evil, past and present, embodied in the likes of killer James Earl Ray, and others who hate/hated King and what he pursued.

The media production of the circumstances of his death has an important role, but not as a shrine. We should never forget why or how King died, but we should also not re-open this aging wound every year on the anniversary of his death, and then expect progress to result.

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy for actingwhite.com

The privacy of our visitors to actingwhite.com (acting black) is important to us.

At actingwhite.com, we recognize that privacy of your personal information is important. Here is information on what types of personal information we receive and collect when you use and visit actingwhite.com, and how we safeguard your information. We never sell your personal information to third parties.

Log FilesAs with most other websites, we collect and use the data contained in log files. The information in the log files include your IP (internet protocol) address, your ISP (internet service provider, such as AOL or Shaw Cable), the browser you used to visit our site (such as Internet Explorer or Firefox), the time you visited our site and which pages you visited throughout our site.

Cookies and Web BeaconsWe do use cookies to store information, such as your personal preferences when you visit our site. This could include only showing you a popup once in your visit, or the ability to login to some of our features, such as forums.

We also use third party advertisements on actingwhite.com to support our site. Some of these advertisers may use technology such as cookies and web beacons when they advertise on our site, which will also send these advertisers (such as Google through the Google AdSense program) information including your IP address, your ISP , the browser you used to visit our site, and in some cases, whether you have Flash installed. This is generally used for geotargeting purposes (showing New York real estate ads to someone in New York, for example) or showing certain ads based on specific sites visited (such as showing cooking ads to someone who frequents cooking sites).

You can chose to disable or selectively turn off our cookies or third-party cookies in your browser settings, or by managing preferences in programs such as Norton Internet Security. However, this can affect how you are able to interact with our site as well as other websites. This could include the inability to login to services or programs, such as logging into forums or accounts.